title: Evaluating gold standard corpora against gene/protein tagging solutions and lexical resources.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The identification of protein and gene names (PGNs) from the scientific literature requires semantic resources: Terminological and lexical resources deliver the term candidates into PGN tagging solutions and the gold standard corpora (GSC) train them to identify term parameters and contextual features. Ideally all three resources, i.e. corpora, lexica and taggers, cover the same domain knowledge, and thus support identification of the same types of PGNs and cover all of them. Unfortunately, none of the three serves as a predominant standard and for this reason it is worth exploring, how these three resources comply with each other. We systematically compare different PGN taggers against publicly available corpora and analyze the impact of the included lexical resource in their performance. In particular, we determine the performance gains through false positive filtering, which contributes to the disambiguation of identified PGNs.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In general, machine learning approaches (ML-Tag) for PGN tagging show higher F1-measure performance against the BioCreative-II and Jnlpba GSCs (exact matching), whereas the lexicon based approaches (LexTag) in combination with disambiguation methods show better results on FsuPrge and PennBio. The ML-Tag solutions balance precision and recall, whereas the LexTag solutions have different precision and recall profiles at the same F1-measure across all corpora. Higher recall is achieved with larger lexical resources, which also introduce more noise (false positive results). The ML-Tag solutions certainly perform best, if the test corpus is from the same GSC as the training corpus. As expected, the false negative errors characterize the test corpora and - on the other hand - the profiles of the false positive mistakes characterize the tagging solutions. Lex-Tag solutions that are based on a large terminological resource in combination with false positive filtering produce better results, which, in addition, provide concept identifiers from a knowledge source in contrast to ML-Tag solutions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The standard ML-Tag solutions achieve high performance, but not across all corpora, and thus should be trained using several different corpora to reduce possible biases. The LexTag solutions have different profiles for their precision and recall performance, but with similar F1-measure. This result is surprising and suggests that they cover a portion of the most common naming standards, but cope differently with the term variability across the corpora. The false positive filtering applied to LexTag solutions does improve the results by increasing their precision without compromising significantly their recall. The harmonisation of the annotation schemes in combination with standardized lexical resources in the tagging solutions will enable their comparability and will pave the way for a shared standard.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zürich, CH-8050 Zürich, Switzerland. rebholz@ifi.uzh.ch.
authors.forename: Dietrich
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Rebholz-Schuhmann
authors.forename: Senay
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kafkas
authors.forename: Jee-Hyub
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Chen
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Antonio
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Jimeno Yepes
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Hoehndorf
authors.forename: Rolf
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Backofen
authors.forename: Ian
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Lewin